And it reinforces a troubling and disgusting deference to authority, as if rights spring forth from the whims of 9 random lawyers dressed in gowns.

Americans need to realize that rights, gay and otherwise, are not the State's to grant or remove. More often than not, the State is a threat to rights, as the existence of DOMA demonstrates.

The victory here is that we're one step closer to the ideal: removing the State from marriage altogether.

Note to so-called liberals: stop bowing to lawyers in gowns.

Note to social conservatives: if God is as great, and marriage is as ancient and sacred as you claim, then don't rely on the State to define it for you, and don't expect other people with different beliefs to live by your definitions.

So the left things that animated puppets that have been iconic for Children for decades are now homosexuals. Oh the implication was always there, but that is because adults made that implication. Not children. However, many of these children are grown now and have an affinity for the characters of Burt and Ernie because they are so cute. So this is another thing that the left can twist, taint, and exploit for their diabolical and nefarious purposes. Hopefully people will now abandon sesame street and stop watching. I wonder if Sesame street sanctioned this.

And second ... what kind of adult is willing to screw with toddlers by appropriating their cultural icon. I have a four year old who still adores Ernie ... who it should be noted has a far too positive attitude to be as in your face as this cover is.

I do think there is a religious definition of marriage as a sacrament and that exists independently of other unions that are accepted in society, such as common law marriage. To me, this is where gay marriage falls and I don't really care about it.

I think the idea we're supposed to get is "ha ha, your kids have been watching gay muppets, and you didn't even know it."

Also, "now our gay muppets will come out of the closet."

I believe what upset people the most about Brown v. Board was that it involved children. You could read that case as simply enforcing the equal protection clause, which bans racial discrimination.

But why start with children?

It's possible the Supreme Court (or Thurgood Marshall, who brought suit) wasn't just trying to enforce the law. They were trying to change the society. And the idea was that by racially integrating children at an early age, we could make racial bigotry disappear.

And it worked! But it was also like, "ha ha, we have your children now." And there was a white flight from the public schools. In fact, in many places the public schools are still suffering.

This is, I think, a fear of parents, that they will lose control of their children to state indoctrination.

And this, this is why so many people have resisted normalizing gay marriage.

Because it never stops there. It's never about Bob and Don and whether they should be allowed to "marry" and raise their Bichons.

It's about forcing everyone, everywhere (except for those whom you fear like the Muhammedians) to tow the line. Every child in every public school will be forced to understand that they can "choose" to be gay or straight.

Just as 20 years ago, it was considered WRONG to call homosexuality inborn, so too will it be WRONG to dispute that it's something all children should be taught as a choice.

I'd say the chances are greater than 50/50 that Sesame Street will come up with a gay-married couple -- either a human couple, or with clues to the adults, if not the children, that Bert & Ernie are a Couple.

Muppets are not people. They do not have to be identified -- should not be identified -- as adult, child, married, single, etc. If you try to squeeze them into human categories you've got to ask yourselves whether they're adults (if they are, why don't they go to work every day?) or children (if so, where are their parents) first.

"So the left things that animated puppets that have been iconic for Children for decades are now homosexuals. Oh the implication was always there, but that is because adults made that implication. Not children."

I/m not so sure about that. When I was a boy (and I mean like 8 or 9, circa 1983), kids would perversely parody pretty much everything, like the "Happy Family" song:

edutcher said..."Remember what the Dinner Jacket said when asked about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran, 'There are no homosexuals in Iran'"

And he wasn't lying. When Iran finds a homosexual, they get right on with it--and "it" isn't "respecting the exercise of their natural rights." You have countries that kill gays and rape victims, but, let's keep this straight, it's really conservative Americans who are the real enemies of gays and women. Yep. Nothing to see here.

And this, this is why so many people have resisted normalizing gay marriage.

This? This is what worried you? You couldn't think of a sillier reason for resisting gay marriage?

Honestly, the "Bert and Ernie are gay, hurr hurr hurr" jokes predate the gay marriage movement by decades. You need to recalibrate your outrage detector, because it is clearly on too sensitive a setting.

Nice for you to mock without addressing my broader point. This is not about suggesting that two puppets living in the barrio fellate each other. This is about bullying pure and simple. This is about getting to the dissenting adults through the Obamayouth.

Is it happening here at a rate statistically different from zero? That'd be a "no". Anyone who thinks honor killing is a problem here can't do math. Hell, Christian Science faith healing kills more kids, and even THAT isn't a big problem anymore...

I already did. A long-standing joke is that Bert and Ernie are secretly closeted gays. Like I said, kids were saying this at least as far back as when I was 8 or 9 (1983/1984). The New Yorker cover cartoon takes that and overlays it onto a serious event (the Supreme Court's DOMA decision) to create a humorous juxtaposition.

Huh? Fred Rogers looked nothing like Marlon Brando. He may have done a passable Vito Corleone (Can youse say make him an offer he can't refuse?) but that doesn't count. Nowadays they look similar, as do most corpses after nine or ten years. Hey! wait a minute... by NAMBLA did Liz mean that Man/Boy sex thing? Oh, shit.

I get the Bert and Ernie are gay joke. But it's irrelevant to this week's events. Why not feature some other ACTUAL gay couple? What the fuck do two puppets who have been the subject of urban legend have to do with ACTUAL human homosexuals getting the right to marry bestowed on them by the SCOTUS?

"I get the Bert and Ernie are gay joke. Why not feature some other ACTUAL gay couple? What the fuck do two puppets who have been the subject of urban legend have to do with ACTUAL human homosexuals getting the right to marry bestowed on them by the SCOTUS?"

The editors of The New Yorker have a pretty long tradition of putting cartoons with humorous juxtapositions on the cover.

Examples: Santa Claus in the belly of a military helicopter escorted by special operators. A bearded and crazy-eyed Osama Bin Laden as a Salvation Army Santa. Monica Lewinsky as the Mona Lisa. King Kong splashing eager crowds during a summer heat wave with a massive super soaker. Mitt Romney debating an empty chair.

The answer to your question is that a cartoonist or illustrator pitched the idea and the editors thought that it would make a funny cover.

No, I don't. I think that you're a zealot whose paranoia has led you to see an absurd juxtaposition as a nefarious plot to seduce the youth.

Also, given that you asked me to explain the joke and I responded in good faith and with no hostility, and yet you still got offended, I think that you're one of those hypersensitive assholes who goes around looking for excuses to get upset.

It's not a joke, so says the ARTIST who called it Moment of Joy and said of it, "it's amazing to witness how attitudes on gay rights have evolved in my lifetime. This is great for our kids, a moment we can all celebrate.".